9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtons and boxes which are not metal foil backed with paper or paperboard. In other words, by virtue of this exclusion Heading 48.19 covers only ordinary/plain cartons and boxes, etc., which are not metal foil backed. He also contended that rejection of classification of the imported item which is aluminum foil backed under Chapter 7607 is not proper and correct in law. He also contended that the issue is now fully settled by the judgment of the Larger Bench rendered in the case of Hindustan Packaging Co. Ltd. v. CCE Vadodara, reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 313 (T) wherein it has been clearly held that aluminium foil backed by paper and polyethylene, etc., is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7606.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not as "laminated paper" under sub-heading 4811.29. He submitted that as the issue is now covered by the judgment cited by him, the appeal is required to be allowed. 3. Heard ld. SDR Shri G. Sreekumar Menon who reiterated the finding recorded by the authorities below. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the records. The Chapter note l (m) of Chapter 48 clearly lays down that the Chapter does not cover "metal foil b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een clearly overruled by the Larger Bench. The findings recorded by the Larger Bench in Paras 4 to 12A are extracted herein below :- "4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the sub-mission made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether as contended by the appellants the product made by printing of paper and coating one of its sides by polyethylene and laminating the other side by aluminium foil sandwiched between two layers of polyethylene would be classifiable under sub-heading 4811.90 or under Sub-heading 7606.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 5. The appellants case is that the question of classification of the product in question had been settled by the Tribunal's decision in the case of NDDB v. Collector of Customs (supra) in which imported 'Tetra Pack Asceptic packaging material' having composition similar to the appellants' product was held as classifiable under sub-heading 4811.29. In that case having regard to the composition or the material in question, the purpose served by each of the constituents, the relevant Notes to Chapter 48 of the Customs Tarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is seen that the case of the respondent is that in the case of NDDB the Tribunal had erred in resorting to Rule 3 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff since classification of the disputed product was determinable in terms of Rule 1 for the Rules for the Interpretation of the Excise Tariff in accordance with the terms of the relevant headings and relative Section and Chapter and Notes. It has been contended that having regard to Note 1(1) of Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff [corresponding to Note 1 (m) of Chapter 48 of Customs Tariff discussed in the case of NDDB] and the terms of Heading 76.06 and the relative Note 1 (viii) of Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff, the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 76.06. In order to appreciate the point made on behalf of the Department we refer to Note l (f) of the Chapter 48, Note l (viii) of Chapter 76 and Heading 76.06 of the Central Excise Tariff which are reproduced below :- "Chapter 48 Paper and Paperboard; Articles of Paper Pulp, of Paper and or of Paperboard. Notes: 1. This Chapter does not cover (a) ............... (b) ………... ……………. ……………. (1) Metal foil backed with paper or paperb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other reinforcing material, of thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm". Paras 4 and 10 of the Tribunal's order being relevant are reproduced below :- * * * * * * 11. It is seen that our finding that "Aluminum foil" even when rein forced or backed by materials such as paper and plastics continue to be treatable as 'Aluminium foil' for the purpose of classification under the Central Excise Tariff is also supported by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Park Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 52. The High Court while examining the question whether the appellant company was liable to pay duty under Tariff Item No. 27(c) once again in respect of the process of backing of duty paid aluminium foils with plain or printed paper, held that backing of aluminium foil with printed paper is carried out only to make it more attractive for packing and does not result in any distinct or different article. 12. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Synthetic Industires Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported 1989 (42) E.L.T. 24 that in terms of the Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
